June 2011 Scenario 1 LAW04 AQA

This is my answer to the scenario 1 Q1. Might be useful for structure!

HideShow resource information
Preview of June 2011 Scenario 1 LAW04 AQA

First 714 words of the document:

Scenario 1 June 2011 Paper
Amber Matheson
Eddie could possibly be guilty of both robbery and burglary against the activities in
connection with the football stadium. Both the Actus Reus (AR) and Mens Rea (MR) for the offence
must be proven for it to be successful, and both must coincide (Thabo Meli).
Firstly, for the offence of robbery, found in s8 of the Theft Act 1968 the definition is "A
person is guilty of robber if he steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order
to do so he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being there and
then subjected to force". For the AR of robbery to be satisfied, all five elements of the AR for Theft,
defined in s1 of the Theft Act 1968, must be satisfied (Robinson). Theft is defined as "a person who
dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive
the other of it". The AR component, `appropriation' (s3) is where the owner `takes over the rights of
the owner'. These rights include buying, selling, destroying property etc. This can be seen in Ditham
and Hehl 1997 where the D sold property (furniture) which was taking over the rights of ownership
of that furniture. In the case of Morris 1983 it was said that the D did not have to assume all the rights
of ownership, any of them would be enough. You can also still appropriate property if the owner
consents to it (Lawrence 1971). Gomez 1993 was the case where consent was given but under
deception. In Hinks 2000, consent was given but the V had a low mental age so the D still
appropriated the property.
The second part of the AR of Theft is `property' (s4) and is defined as "money and all other
property, real or personal including things in action and other intangible property". In Kelly and
Lindsay 1998 it was decided that the body parts could be personal property if their attributes had
been changed by way of `virtue or application of skill' in this case it was application of skill for art
work. Money is also the notes or coins.
The final part of the AR for Theft is `belonging to another' (s5(1)) says that property is
belonging to any person having possession of control of it or having any proprietary interest or right.
An example of possession is in Turner 1971 as the owner of a car put it into a garage for repairs but
went back and took it using spare keys. The garage was in possession and control of the car so it was
Theft. It also covers instances where property is inside the perimeters of a building/site that is under
control or possession (Woodman 1974).
In this instance the D appropriated Dan's wallet by taking it from him. The wallet is classed as
property as It contains money and is personal property to Dan. As Dan is the owner of the wallet he
generally has possession and control of it, as well as before Eddie took the wallet it was on his
person and still under his control therefore Eddie appropriated the property by taking it from him. All
five elements have been satisfied for Theft here so Robbery is now an available offence.
For Robbery there must be a threat or use of force which the prosecution must prove. This
threat of force can be small as any force amounts (Dawson and James 1976). The fear of force only
needs to be intended upon the V as the V does not actually have to be in fear (B and R v DPP). The
force of threat of force can be indirect for Robbery as it is on `any person' which means that the
person threatened does not have to be the person whom the theft occurs. The force must be
immediately before or at the time of the theft which can cause problems where a card is taken but

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

In the case of Hale 1979 the D's broke into an elderly
lady's house and put their hand over the woman's mouth while the other stole a jewellery box. D's
tried to argue that the theft was a separate offence but the judge ruled that it was on-going.
Another case is Lockley 1995 where the D was caught shoplifting cans of beer from an off-license
and used force upon the shopkeeper that was trying to stop him.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

Inhabited places such as houseboats or caravans are classed as
`buildings'. There is no definition but has been problems in cases involving structures like portacabins
for office work etc. (B and S v Leathley) (Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Goul d) `Part of a
building' is added to the section to cover cases where the D does not enter as a trespasser but then
goes into a part of the building where he is (Walkington).
The next stage is establishing that the D is trespassing.…read more

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »